Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 6, 2016, 14:51 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqeg76vmzb.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1607020933080.12947@virtualbox>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Of course I agree that it would be very nice to have a test at a later
> stage that does exercise GPG if it is available. But would it really be so
> terrible to have a (simpler, not as complete) test that is exercised
> *also* when GPG is *not* available?

What I would expect is "In the ideal world, we may want both, and in an imperfect world in which we can have only one, we'd rather have the 'even though we can run it only when GPG is available, we make sure that we drive GPG correctly' one, dropping the other.", simply because the end result matters more, not how the instruction to the end user is phrased.

Sure, in even less perfect world, having a superficial test might be better than nothing, but reminding ourselves to aim high (and make sure we document the decision when we punt) is an important part of the purpose of the review process, so...